Hi Ron --
> I feel value is a function, that which happens when subject
> meets object. No subjects and objects, no value.
> I interpret most of you saying that MOQ's patterns of value
> are distinct from the subjects and objects it refers to and
> therefore subjects and objects can be "dropped" leaving
> only the value. I think frequently SOM becomes synonomous
> with true/false logic in this forum.
I totally agree with your argument, as well as your assessement of the MoQ
dilemma. There is no question but that Value is what connects objects
experientially to the subject. There is no Value without sensibility, and
the mode of existence is such that Value is made sensible as the object(s)
of the subject's awareness.
My ontology defines existence as a dichotomy of awareness and beingness that
is held together by the Value of the Source while, at the same time, being
pushed apart by negation of the Source. This dynamic balance or
"opposition" of forces is the cosmic principle by which Value is made aware.
(Indeed, it's the principle by which we're all here.)
Cusanus, Heidegger, and a few other philosophers postulated that existence
is the "actualized" mode or relational phase of an absolute principle or
potentiality which is non-relational. According to Heidegger, existence is
the differentiated "appearance" of the Absolute, reduced or "negated" to a
finite perspective.
In your referenced essay, William James almost apologizes for his inability
to validate Consciousness. His pragmatic persuasion will not allow him to
accept a primary source. Likewise, Robert Pirsig treats Quality as if it
were the "universal" source, but in deference to logical positivism will not
presume a primary metaphysical source. But since he equates Quality with
Value, and both are relative to subjective experience, the MoQ, for all its
level parsing, has failed to overcome the duality of existence.
> Perhaps SOM is better defined as true/false logic,
> not to be confused with subject/object value perception.
The logic is that physical reality is a dichotomy of awareness and being,
each of which is dependent on the other to exist. Value perception exists
only differentially -- it is derived from Absolute Sensibility which does
not exist but simply IS. That's the metaphysical Catch-22. If you reject
that, you're on the horns of a dilemma.
> Perhaps the bone of contention is that Pirsig has already relegated
> this concept as the "MOQ", that which BO wants to relegate
> as a higher subset of the intellectual level. Bo asserts that MOQ
> is an intellectual transcendence, Pirsig says nope, still an
> intellection. And I think I tend to go with Bob on this one.
I think you may be exaggerating the significance of these notions. All
knowledge is a subjective perspective of objective reality. Bo acknowledges
subjective awareness ("intellect") as critical to experiential existence.
Bob does not. Neither has "transcended" anything, let alone duality.
I like your initial statement, Ron. It's only when you attempt to fit it
into the MoQ thesis that it loses cogency. You've made some good points.
Try not to let the MoQ influence your conclusions.
Best regards,
Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
